TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (4) TMI 332
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manufacture of 'Compact Florescent Lamps' and 'Automative/Halogen Lamps'. A show cause notice was issued being No.45/MRT COMMISSIONER/95 dated 21-11-95 alleging that the manufacturers had evaded central excise duty amounting to around Rs. 65 lakhs for the period 17-1-94 to 23-5-95 from M/s. Phoenix Lamps India Limited and about Rs. 49 lakhs from M/s. Phoenix Electric (India) Ltd. The notice contained allegations of clandestine manufacture and clearance of the goods without payment of duty and under-valuation of halogen lamp capsules. The show cause notice also proposed penalties, confiscation of plant and machinery etc. After obtaining the replies of the noticees and hearing them in the matter, the Commissioner passed the adjudication orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hearing that the slips of paper are evidence of clandestine collection of cash and the explanations offered that they did not relate to cash collection for the goods manufactured by the respondents were not correct. With regard to the allegation of under-valuation of halogen lamp capsules, the allegation in the show cause notice was that the sale price was less than the cost of production. While the cost of production was over Rs. 21/-, the sale was at Rs. 14/- and this is a clear case of under-valuation of goods with intent to evade payment of duty. The Revenue submits that the Collector was wrong in not upholding the allegation in the show cause notice. 3.  The learned Sr. Counsel representing the respondents explained during hearin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and returned. The manufacturer had produced sufficient proof including the issue of credit notes by the manufacturer to the buyers in evidence of the transactions. Therefore, the inference drawn in the show cause notice that these goods had been clandestinely removed had no basis. The slips of paper showing cash payment, at best, only cast suspicion about transactions. The learned counsel explained that these payments had, in no way, been related to sale of the goods manufactured by the respondents and no demand of duty could have been confirmed based on them. With regard to the charge of under-valuation, the learned counsel explained that it is on record that these goods had been cleared from the manufacturer's factory after proper assessm....